Play area is defined as: ... the shared space occupied by ships, squadrons, obstacle tokens and objective tokens. It's 3x3 for Core set, or 3x6 for 300-400 pt games.
Share is defined as: A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group.
Occupy is defined as: To fill up (time or space), To dwell or reside in.

"If any portion of a ship’s or squadron’s base is outside the play area, that ship or squadron is destroyed. For this purpose, ignore activation sliders, shield dials, and the plastic portions of a ship’s base that frame shield dials."

You must deploy ships to the play area, specifically the deployment area, a subset of the setup area, which is a part of the play area.

Lyraeus' question posits that nothing prevents you from deploying your ships on top of each other, as "overlapping" is only directly addressed as happening after movement. The main problem with this interpretation is that because of how play area is defined, that would mean that everything on the play area becomes the play area as well, and you'd never be able to "go off" the play area. Ships could hang off the edge, and that'd be okay, because now they're part of the play area by extension. That's a direct violation of the entire purpose of the second paragraph under Play Area on pg. 9 of the Rules Reference. Sharing and occupy only means that the ships, squadrons, obstacles and objective tokens get to use that space on the play area. They do not become part of the play area itself.

The play area is the surface the game is played upon. Ships share that space, but do not become part of the play area. You must deploy onto the play area. Therefore you never gain the opportunity to deploy your ship/squadron on top of another ship or squadron because that is not a valid deployment location.

Play area is defined as: ... the shared space occupied by ships, squadrons, obstacle tokens and objective tokens. It's 3x3 for Core set, or 3x6 for 300-400 pt games.

Share is defined as: A[/size] [/size] part[/size] [/size] or[/size] [/size] portion[/size] [/size] belonging[/size] [/size] to,[/size] [/size] distributed[/size] [/size] to,[/size] [/size] contributed[/size] [/size] by,[/size] [/size] or[/size] [/size] owed[/size] [/size] by[/size] [/size] a[/size] [/size] person[/size] [/size] or[/size] [/size] group.[/size]

Occupy is defined as: To [/size] fill[/size] up [/size] (time[/size] or [/size] space),[/size] To [/size] dwell[/size] or [/size] reside[/size] in.[/size]

"If any portion of a ship’s or squadron’s base is outside the play area, that ship or squadron is destroyed. For this purpose, ignore activation sliders, shield dials, and the plastic portions of a ship’s base that frame shield dials."

You must deploy ships to the play area, specifically the deployment area, a subset of the setup area, which is a part of the play area.

Lyraeus' question posits that nothing prevents you from deploying your ships on top of each other, as "overlapping" is only directly addressed as happening after movement. The main problem with this interpretation is that because of how play area is defined, that would mean that everything on the play area becomes the play area as well, and you'd never be able to "go off" the play area. Ships could hang off the edge, and that'd be okay, because now they're part of the play area by extension. That's a direct violation of the entire purpose of the second paragraph under Play Area on pg. 9 of the Rules Reference. Sharing and occupy only means that the ships, squadrons, obstacles and objective tokens get to use that space on the play area. They do not become part of the play area itself.

The play area is the surface the game is played upon. Ships share that space, but do not become part of the play area. You must deploy onto the play area. Therefore you never gain the opportunity to deploy your ship/squadron on top of another ship or squadron because that is not a valid deployment location.

YES!!!!! this is why this is all pointless...... ITS NOT A VALID DEPLOYMENT!!!!

You realize that if a ship passes a play area line it is out right? This game has been really good on including all the needed rules for things. It's when rules are omitted that this game that people are getting upset over.

The play area line is the edge of 3x3 or 6x3. Don't tell me that it is 2d because thanks to minefields we know that you can actually deploy ontop of an obstacle/objective marker and nothing will occur since obstacle effects only take place after a maneuver is executed. I sense a theme here.

So how can the game be 2d when there are plenty of occurrences where all 4 pegs are not on the "flat area".

The times when all 4 pegs are not physically touching the flat area are expressly called out- picking up and moving your ship is a required and explicit piece of the game. Ditto overlapping obstacles.

This is silly, and I hope FFG's stance isn't to add this to an errata, but rather to give it the attention it deserves: zero

The times when all 4 pegs are not physically touching the flat area are expressly called out- picking up and moving your ship is a required and explicit piece of the game. Ditto overlapping obstacles.

This is silly, and I hope FFG's stance isn't to add this to an errata, but rather to give it the attention it deserves: zero

Feel free to play it how you like, but this is not a burning issue that needs an errata. I think most people conclude that it's CLEAR the way deployment is meant to occur. Those that ahve trouble with that are quickly going to ensure no one wants to play with them. If I were in a tournament and someone set their ships up like this, I would ask the TO for a ruling. If that player got smart and said "it doesn't say you can't!", I'm just not sure I would commit 2 hours of my life to playing with that person.

I'm not trying to get personal or say you're doing anything wrong here. What I am saying is- pick your battles dude! is this TRULY an issue we demand a response for? Is this hurting your enjoyment of the game? do you REALLY think deploying in such a way is okay simply because it's not covered by the rules?

This is pure silliness and does not warrant any further discussion! Lyraeus, get back to making cool videos and chill with this silliness

You're not paying attention to what i'm saying. The play area is the 3x3/3x6 area. Everything goes on top of that. Can we agree on that much? Deployment states that you have to place ships/squadrons DIRECTLY ON THE PLAY AREA. (It says setup area and deployment zones, but those are clearly defined subsections of the play area.)

Obstacles and objectives have pretty clear rules that state you can move ships and squadrons on top of them, and gives us precedence for being able to deploy on top of them.
There is no such precedence for being able to deploy on top of ships, and the closest example we have, Hyperspace Assault, specifically states that you MUST displace squadrons you overlap as per movement.

You have also failed to address the nightmare incurred by attempting to move these models after they've been "stacked" on top of each other, as it will be impossible to accurately fit the maneuver template into the base, nor will it be possible to measure range and LOS accurately and consistently for attacks and abilities.

I don't care about whether its 2D or not. Every standard of measurement we have for this game relies on a flat level surface between 2 points, except for the 1.5-2 MM due to the height of obstacles. That height displacement give you maybe a 1/10th of a mm of error. Placing a base on top of another base incurs roughly 1.5mm of error. Which is frankly unacceptable. I've lost tournaments because of 1mm of range.

Furthermore, saying that the game can move into a 3rd axis is tantamount to saying i can hold my range ruler at an angle, base down on the mat, the other end 5 inches above the mat to say that you're out of range due to the "shortened" distance. Check the rules. Tell me where you have to hold the ruler flat and level to measure range. It only says you have to use the same side from point to point.

What it really comes down to is that the rules state what you can do, and certain rules further modify those by saying what you can't do in certain circumstances. This is called a Permissive Rule Set. That's what practically every card game and board game uses.
Other wise you run into:

The things people will entrench themselves in.

/sigh

I have covered all of these things.

Don't bring up the stupid "it does not say I cant" argument. I covered that as well.

The point of this is that everything is covered. Squadrons can't overlap, the play area is not specified as a 2d enviornment because obstacles make it a 3d enviornment, the overlapping and obstacles rules only take place after a maneuver is executed. Why are all these things laid out but overlapping in the deployment.

Just go read the 8 pages that was accumulated on this topic. The reason no one has yet to push me off this is because they can't show me a rule on this.

The game is pretty Restrictive in its rules.

Just go read the 8 pages that was accumulated on this topic.

Nah, but feel free to carry on I think I've invested enough time into this!

Hey, hey, hey!! To clarify: Lyraeus, I am not mad at you and I never was, regardless of how impolite you have been to me. The fact that you think I am means you know exactly what I am talking about. But I digress....

I have brought this out to the General Forums because I felt that 1) that stack of ships is just awesome and 2) you're being.... well, whatever it is you're being (english is not my first language and I do not know what the proper english term is...) maybe "silly?" so I thought might as well see how silly we can be along your lines of reasoning.

So DWRR, yeah... I made this thread for a laugh so it going to be childish. No malice intended though. A quick search on Google says "parody" means "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" so this is where I hoped we could be silly and have fun. If I wanted to discuss rules, then there was already a thread on it. Unfortunately, the tone of that other thread seems to have seeped into this one as well.

Weird that only a few people have actually noticed the cool photos and have had a laugh because of it. Kinda hard to miss with the big pictures....

Come on Lyraeus, surely you can't actually think stacking ships on top of each other is ok?

Stacking ships is a bit beyond the extreme I thought up. I was just going off the base portion with 2 to 3 pegs still on the table. In the end it seems I am a just a joke to even think of this.

I'll admit I dont peruse the rule forum very often. Its an interesting idea, that I dont personally think holds water. Just because one cannot be proven wrong in rules does not mean your not wrong but, I digress. This post was pointedly meant to degrade a opposing opinion in a unsportsmanlike way. I'm a little surprised no one from on High has said a word to it, but perhaps they are just enjoying the thread with tub of popcorn, or simply dont read the forums, which is a shame if true.

Frankly as far as the other player is concerned, if I ever saw the base picture that Lyraeus posted start to form while playing an opponent I would kindly ask him not to do that. If he insisted it was a valid setup, I'd pickup my stuff and look for another person to play with. I personally dont think that kind of set up is in the spirit of the game, regardless of if its mentioned in the rules or not. I'd like to see someone at a National/Championship Try that kind of setup. See how far it flew with the judges.

I already have enough self esteem issues. Being picked on for something I think is legitimate is wrong to me.

I have come on here more than enough times and said I was wrong or changed my tune when I was wrong so anyone who thinks I am being stubborn on this needs to reevaluate their information. If it were so cut and dry I would have dropped this long ago.

As for FFG. I have sent them two enquires on this and if they had a cut and dry answer, I would expect them to of emailed me back by now.

I wouldn't assume no answer means the answer is not cut and dry. I sent them a complicated question that actually had a really easy answer for another game. All they had to do in reply was reiterate something that they explain in the rule book and I overlooked by mistake (and have since found). It has been almost 2 weeks with no response.

Hey, hey, hey!! To clarify: Lyraeus, I am not mad at you and I never was, regardless of how impolite you have been to me . The fact that you think I am means you know exactly what I am talking about [emphasis mine] . But I digress....

I have brought this out to the General Forums because I felt that 1) that stack of ships is just awesome and 2) you're being.... well, whatever it is you're being (english is not my first language and I do not know what the proper english term is...) maybe "silly?" so I thought might as well see how silly we can be along your lines of reasoning.

So DWRR, yeah... I made this thread for a laugh so it going to be childish. No malice intended though. A quick search on Google says "parody" means "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" so this is where I hoped we could be silly and have fun. If I wanted to discuss rules, then there was already a thread on it. Unfortunately, the tone of that other thread seems to have seeped into this one as well.

I'll give you the complete benefit of the doubt on it, mate (said entirely without sarcasm). I'll include a pair of definitions, because they're somewhat at the core of the toxicity.

Lyraeus could be called pedantic about this issue: “the act of being a pedant” where “a pedant is one who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.” Used in a sentence, 'Vykes is a bit of a smug pedant at times, even when trying to be helpful.'

I won't speak for Lyraeus's intent, or anyone's but my own. Each person's reasons will originate from their own experiences and expectations, which will naturally bend and prioritize themselves differently according to each individual. By off-handedly dismissing it, you dismiss the person and their experiences as insignificant. Even if it seems weird, all these ideas come from somewhere, and that has merit to them.

The problem with the thread is that the opening statement can read in a way that can at least be construed as passive-aggressive: “indirect hostility manifesting in negative attitudes and resistance to meeting adequate interpersonal standards.” I had to be a little creative with the wording because the full definition is longer, but it boils down to quips and actions that are meant to be hostile or judgemental while allowing a degree of deniability. Verbal example: “I didn't mean it like that, you're just overly-sensitive.” or more directly, “Yeah, well who cares anyway.” I marked a part of the post you made as an example of something that can be read that way given the circumstances.

If you wanted to show the stacking thing, just say 'DiabloAzule came up with these great displays! Lets see what you can do!” Lyraeus's whole issue is functionally irrelevant except as baggage from the previous thread, which hasn't been concluded officially.

When you set the tone, you set the discussion. It's nearly impossible to get back on track because it primes people's emotional responses and makes one party defensive or offensive. It's better to disarm an individual rather than to try and dismember an individual...

... yes that last part was a joke, no it was not a very good one.

I already have enough self esteem issues. Being picked on for something I think is legitimate is wrong to me.

I have come on here more than enough times and said I was wrong or changed my tune when I was wrong so anyone who thinks I am being stubborn on this needs to reevaluate their information. If it were so cut and dry I would have dropped this long ago.

As for FFG. I have sent them two enquires on this and if they had a cut and dry answer, I would expect them to of emailed me back by now.

I wouldn't assume no answer means the answer is not cut and dry. I sent them a complicated question that actually had a really easy answer for another game. All they had to do in reply was reiterate something that they explain in the rule book and I overlooked by mistake (and have since found). It has been almost 2 weeks with no response.

Hey, hey, hey!! To clarify: Lyraeus, I am not mad at you and I never was, regardless of how impolite you have been to me . The fact that you think I am means you know exactly what I am talking about [emphasis mine] . But I digress....

I have brought this out to the General Forums because I felt that 1) that stack of ships is just awesome and 2) you're being.... well, whatever it is you're being (english is not my first language and I do not know what the proper english term is...) maybe "silly?" so I thought might as well see how silly we can be along your lines of reasoning.

So DWRR, yeah... I made this thread for a laugh so it going to be childish. No malice intended though. A quick search on Google says "parody" means "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" so this is where I hoped we could be silly and have fun. If I wanted to discuss rules, then there was already a thread on it. Unfortunately, the tone of that other thread seems to have seeped into this one as well.

I'll give you the complete benefit of the doubt on it, mate (said entirely without sarcasm). I'll include a pair of definitions, because they're somewhat at the core of the toxicity.

Lyraeus could be called pedantic about this issue: “the act of being a pedant” where “a pedant is one who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.” Used in a sentence, 'Vykes is a bit of a smug pedant at times, even when trying to be helpful.'

I won't speak for Lyraeus's intent, or anyone's but my own. Each person's reasons will originate from their own experiences and expectations, which will naturally bend and prioritize themselves differently according to each individual. By off-handedly dismissing it, you dismiss the person and their experiences as insignificant. Even if it seems weird, all these ideas come from somewhere, and that has merit to them.

The problem with the thread is that the opening statement can read in a way that can at least be construed as passive-aggressive: “indirect hostility manifesting in negative attitudes and resistance to meeting adequate interpersonal standards.” I had to be a little creative with the wording because the full definition is longer, but it boils down to quips and actions that are meant to be hostile or judgemental while allowing a degree of deniability. Verbal example: “I didn't mean it like that, you're just overly-sensitive.” or more directly, “Yeah, well who cares anyway.” I marked a part of the post you made as an example of something that can be read that way given the circumstances.

If you wanted to show the stacking thing, just say 'DiabloAzule came up with these great displays! Lets see what you can do!” Lyraeus's whole issue is functionally irrelevant except as baggage from the previous thread, which hasn't been concluded officially.

When you set the tone, you set the discussion. It's nearly impossible to get back on track because it primes people's emotional responses and makes one party defensive or offensive. It's better to disarm an individual rather than to try and dismember an individual...

... yes that last part was a joke, no it was not a very good one.

This was not created to dismiss anything but rather to poke fun at what the community has come up with --- Lyraeus' loophole find and DibaloAzul's hilarious exaggeration of it. Just because most of the people on the rules sub-form has been giving Lyraeus a hard time doesn't mean I stand with them. Feel free to see my replies in that thread if you wish.

As for the tone... well, it's hard to put a "tone" down on a written medium... as for the humor, well, you see it as you want to see it ("grotesquely malicious"). All I see is a "meh" tactic that I doubt has any advantages but I have seen some cool (and dangerous!!) pictures as a result of that and I found that awesome!

With regards to the point you highlighted, I don't see how that has any bearing here. It was a message to Lyraeus, as he thought I was trying to get back at him. Again, the taint of the original thread seems to have seeped into this one.

Actually, I have always found it funny but context is a great way to add tone to a written conversation. Could be my aspergers or the fact I love to read but that's how books do it right? The choice of words used and the formation of those words gives context to the meaning behind those words.

Word usage is a very strong way one implies 'tone' in a written form. The Tone defense is used very often in online forums and any text format as a way to disrupt or backpedal on potentially harmful words and not look like the bad guy. I will admit it is harder to decipther 'tone' but certain words tend to imply it more then others. Along with sentence structure. There are simple quick words that imply anger, disgust and a myriad of different emotional stances. You will rarely find a lighthearted discussion that's strewn with expletives.

Take this sentence, its one that stood out to me after reading it a few days ago.

"Prove me wrong. I'll wait, I've got time."

In my opinion that sentence is distinctly argumentative. It's dismissive, and implies that the writer has already calculated the chance of himself actually being wrong as minimal. Could they mean something different? SURE. That's not what the words suggest to me.

Now try this one.

"I've been wrong before. I might wrong here too, let me know."

Arguably they aren't much better then one another, but the other implies more of an open ended discussion to me. Word choice is ultimately very important. An you can argue that figuring out ones tone is impossible in text, but there are structures and words that imply mocking, condensation, and argumentative along with many others.

Great review in context dark fortune

I see you used two of my statements for this which has a context of its own.

Great review in context dark fortune

I see you used two of my statements for this which has a context of its own.

I hope I didn't come off as a ****. I Didn't intend to quote anyone word for word, Though I do admit to the first one being an approximation of something you wrote. I dont remember what that conversation was about, but that particular phrasing caught me and stuck with me. The second I was trying to think of a less argumentative way of saying the same thing.

I believed I used both of these in the rules question version of this thread.

It was either there or another thread where we were talking about tactics. . .

Word usage is a very strong way one implies 'tone' in a written form. The Tone defense is used very often in online forums and any text format as a way to disrupt or backpedal on potentially harmful words and not look like the bad guy. I will admit it is harder to decipther 'tone' but certain words tend to imply it more then others. Along with sentence structure. There are simple quick words that imply anger, disgust and a myriad of different emotional stances. You will rarely find a lighthearted discussion that's strewn with expletives.

Take this sentence, its one that stood out to me after reading it a few days ago.

"Prove me wrong. I'll wait, I've got time."

In my opinion that sentence is distinctly argumentative. It's dismissive, and implies that the writer has already calculated the chance of himself actually being wrong as minimal. Could they mean something different? SURE. That's not what the words suggest to me.

Now try this one.

"I've been wrong before. I might wrong here too, let me know."

Arguably they aren't much better then one another, but the other implies more of an open ended discussion to me. Word choice is ultimately very important. An you can argue that figuring out ones tone is impossible in text, but there are structures and words that imply mocking, condensation, and argumentative along with many others.

True, but even Vykes had to add in a phrase in parenthesis in his earlier reply --- to ensure the "tone" came across.

Sentences by themselves can be way out of context when examined outside of the whole. In fact, the online "persona" of the poster can greatly warp a sentence.

"Prove me wrong. I'll wait, I've got time." can be taken as pure arrogance if the person has been aggressive/argumentative before, but might be less so when directed at an even worse member of the online community.

This is true as well, if someone has garnered a particular type of persona, then yes they any words they type will be read in the way the reader has perceived that person. Ah forum life, so many nuances and so little time to deal with them all.